Dumbing down America

Want a fistful of irony? I got it for you, served up by Fauxnews and the NY Times. Check out these competing articles on Islam from Fox, and on Americans' knowledge of religion from the Times.

In a recent survey, many Americans, especially American Christians, were ignorant of some of the finer points of their religion. This surprises me somewhat. The poll's other finding, that many American Christians are even more ignorant of world religions, does not.

So what is America doing to rectify this problem? After all, wouldn't it be best if we knew more about the views espoused by the people we are fighting in Afghanistan, the people from whom we buy our billions of dollars worth of oil, the people who are building a Community Center almost at Ground Zero? Shouldn't we know about Islam, and for that matter, if our founding fathers meant for this to be a Christian nation with Christina values, shouldn't we know a little bit more about Christianity as well?

Enter Texas. I've had some choice words for Texas in the last few months based on their attempts to construe American history as a triumph of Conservative Christina values. The plans they rolled out for the American History textbooks championed the views of Phyllis Schlafly, "“It is long overdue for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect our children against the intolerant evolutionists.”

Those textbook makers now want to exclude Islam from Texans' education. Rather than understand the views of the radical Muslims we're fighting in the "war on terror," the beliefes of those constructing a "Mosque" (what goes on in those things?) in the vicinity of Ground Zero, and perhaps just understanding the views of 1/6 of the world's population, Texas wants to...dumb us down. Why bother understanding? We're right, they're wrong. It's that easy. Enough with the over-Islamization of our history, this is America, a good Christian country. Problem is, we don't know what it means to be Christian either.

Our ultra-conservative founding fathers

If you follow politics you’ve probably heard about one of my favorite groups, the Tea Party. The ultra-conservative group validates itself by forging strong bonds with our ultra-conservative founding fathers, and the two groups do have something in common, both come from the late 18^th century. The ultra-conservative group validates itself by attempting to align itself with our founding fathers, and the two groups do have something in common--- both come from the late 18^th century. Despite its historical-based name and the fondness for colonial period apparel, the Tea Party bills itself as the group faithful to the constitutional ideals of our founders.

False.

The Tea Party wants us to return to our nation's roots, but those roots aren’t as ultra-conservative as they’d like you to believe. For starters, our founding fathers were crazy radicals trying some new political experiment. It was a good experiment, but far from preserving the status quo they were doing their best to run from it, king and all. This group of people established a truly new form of government. They wrote a document that was the first of its kind, and they laid the framework for a country the likes of which the world had never seen.

Unlike the Tea Party, the founding fathers were looking forward. The document they wrote and the country they built was one facing the future, not the past. That the Tea Party's views align with our founding fathers only shows how far we have come as a country and how much harm the Tea Party could do to our great nation. It's not 1787 anymore, and the document that our founding fathers created needs to be, as it has been before, malleable enough to address the issues of the present and future.

For example, are terrorism suspects allowed to board airplanes? I don’t know. It's 1787 and the Constitution is silent on both the issue of airplanes and suicide bombers. What about heat-seeking missiles? Are those included in the arms that I’m allowed to keep and bear?

The Constitution as originally penned leaves something to be desired. Imagine a world in which African-Americans count as 3/5ths of a person, women aren’t allowed to vote, and guns are outlawed, the 2^nd amendment, of course, wasn’t part of the original document. Is it that world for which the Tea Party is waxing nostalgic?

The Constitution laid the groundwork for the greatest country that has ever existed, and must respect it. But we should remember that the men who wrote it were well ahead of their time, not far behind it. The Constitution is a living document, and those who would have it be rigid will find themselves living in 1787, a simpler time before the problems of the 21st century, and without the means to address those problems.

Apologies to the Tea Party

So I apologize to Tea Partiers nationwide. I was wrong about you. Based on the ideas you espouse I was sure you hated America and were actively seeking to send us back in time, perhaps to circa 1790.

I was mistaken. During Tuesday's primaries, and really throughout the whole primary season, you have shown your devotion to America by nominating true idiots. With any luck, you will have achieved my goal of improving our country by making it possible for Democrats to maintain a majority in the Senate (and hopefully the House as well). Thank you Tea Party. Thank you for Rand Paul, thank you for "mama grizzly" (only in the vapid world of Sarah Palin could that ever be construed as an endorsement) Christine O'Donnell. Thank you. Maybe some of your candidates win in November, and if so, America will suffer for six years because of it, but it's clear that by electing people who previously worked for the peanut gallery, you have done what's in America's best interest, given Democrats a chance in November.

And for that, I am grateful. Great work "mama grizzly," we'll see you in November.

Hypocrisy 101

Manifests itself in the form of Mitch McConnell, the jowly and stupid Senator from Kentucky. Mitch took his gums to the Senate floor today to advocate the indefinite continuation of the Bush tax cuts, saying, “Democrats spent the last two years putting government in charge of health care, the financial sector, car companies, insurance companies, student loans – you name it,” Mr. McConnell said in his speech, as the Senate resume work after a five-week recess. “Now,” he said, “they want the tax hike to pay for it all.”

Mr. McConnell forgot to mention that the government didn't actually take control of health care, or the financial sector, or car companies or insurance companies, or any of those things. He also forgot to mention that the banks were bailed out by President Bush (a great move by Mr. Bush), and that the bailouts have been a financial success. The government made money on those bailouts! Mitch also forgot about trying to finance two wars while taking the historically unprecedented step of cutting taxes.

The problem with Mitch's idea isn't that it's bad (not all of it). Extending the Bush tax cuts TEMPORARILY is a good idea. The economy needs the money, but extending the tax cuts indefinitely exposes McConnell as the hypocrite he is. You can't stand there and talk about cutting deficits while proposing legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars. Actually, you can do that, because McConnell did today. And sadly, too many people believe he's right. They think the same Republicans who spent billions on wars and turned a surplus into a deficit (remember when Republicans did that? Remember how under the previous Democratic president, we had TOO MUCH money?) will suddenly fix the budget by not collecting money? Maybe I'm harsh, maybe these people aren't hypocrites, maybe math is just beyond them.

Either way, these people are probably going to gain control of at least half of Congress in November, and then America will pay for their lies and lackluster mathematical skills.

Look who's taking a stand

El Presidente! Last week, Obama came out against extending the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The president is right that these tax cuts need to be repealed, although I don't know if this the best time to do it.

On the one hand, raising taxes during a recession isn't the greatest idea. And as much as repealing the tax cuts would help fix the budget issues, the budget deficit is secondary to fixing the economy. Rather, it is important that Americans have money to spend. At the same time, trickle down economics is a joke of an economic theory that does little or nothing to spur growth. Furthermore, extending tax cuts for the wealthy doesn't necessarily increase demand. Just because someone makes 50 times more money than I do doesn't mean they will buy 50 times as many cars, or eat 50 times as much food.

So in the long run extending the tax cuts is a terrible idea, however in the short run, it's probably best to extend the tax cuts for everyone. Even if someone who makes 50x more than I do won't buy 50x more cars, they may buy 3 or 4x more cars. We're in danger of a second, more severe recession, we need people to buy. Give us money and we'll spend it!

Still, at least the President is taking a stand. For too long he has let himself be defined by the bigots, morons and scumbags trying to poison our country. The President has some great ideas, and he's done some great things, but he needs to step up and provide leadership. Taking a stand against the tax cuts is at least a start.

Thinking more about mosques

So as a New Yorker - I just like saying that - I've been doing a lot of thinking about the "Near Ground-Zero, but not quite AT Ground-Zero" Mosque. In fact, as a New Yorker, it's hard not to think about the mosque. The mosque is everywhere, if that even makes sense. Either way, I've been thinking about the mosque, and I've drawn a few more conclusions.

First of all, some Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders got together in Washington yesterday to condemn Terry Jones. Who is Terry Jones, you may ask? Just another bigot exercising his right to burn the Qu'ran, an activity that has been condemned by the President, the military, and now by the leaders of evangelical churches. But this is America, so Terry can burn away no matter how abhorrent that is.

Now while these religious leaders didn't have much to say about the "Near Ground-Zero, but not quite AT Ground-Zero" Mosque, I've already made up my mind.

This mosque is about terrorism, and there's no doubt about it. That statement is as bulletproof as tinfoil. Mark my words, if this mosque gets built, it will soon be filled with guns and bombs and Muslims! Guns and bombs and Muslims, oh my!

However, this isn't a bad thing, in fact, this is a GOOD thing. You see, even though the people building this mosque are evil and want to kill us all, I know something they don't know. I know that the zombie apocalypse is on the horizon, and I know the sooner that mosque goes up and gets stockpiled with weapons, the safer this city will be when the zombies arrive. And that's why, despite the hatred and evil and anti-American sentiment that will undoubtedly fill this mosque, I'm supporting it.

Meanwhile, the guy in charge of building the Mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, claims that his mission is "to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology." Yeah right dude. That has terrorist written all over it. Let's be real Rauf, you're hoarding weapons, and I'm using you for the zombie apocalypse. But it gets worse, "At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks."

Hold up, this isn't just a mosque? It's a community center with prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians and Jews? Jews? Muslims hate Jews. It's a fact, all Muslims hate Jews. Plus, if this is going to be some kinda of wussy, peaceful community center does that mean they're not stashing AK-47s? And, if not, what good will that place be when the zombies arrive? Thanks a lot guys. And by the way, no one is buying the "multifaith memorial." We all know the mosque is being built to insult us.

In all seriousness, Rauf wrote an insightful and poignant defense of the mosque. We should embrace the ideas of acceptance and peace espoused not only by Feisal Abdul Rauf, but by all the religious leaders who gathered in Washington yesterday to condemn bigotry.

Let's make America better today by opening our hearts and minds to those who are different. Our great nation stands as a beacon of hope for the oppressed and a bastion of tolerance for the suffering. When we fear what is different we fear ourselves because you can't walk down the street in New York without seeing the world. And that is why we need the Cordoba Initiative Mosque. That and the zombies!

A possible solution

Reflecting recently on this blog, I realized that many of my posts are critical, perhaps contributing to rancor rather than helping to soothe it. It occurred to me that, as someone who loves America, maybe I should spend more time offering solutions and less time bashing idiots - although I won't end that practice. While reading the news today, I came across an article on the national deficit that provided inspiration.

Now, Republicans will tell you you that the budget deficit is an immediate and pressing crisis, and that our current levels of spending are unsustainable. The first part of that is a lie and Republicans know it; otherwise they wouldn't be trying to extend tax cuts that will cost the country trillions over the next decade. However, Republicans are right about our spending; it is unsustainable, and over the course of the next decade, we have to trim it.

So what can we do? This month, the Bush tax cuts expire. These cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003 have given all Americans - but especially rich ones - a nice tax break, and Congress must now decide whether to extend them, or let them lapse.

Republicans, and some Democrats are calling for them to be extended, in some cases permanently. Many Democrats want to let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire and extend the rest. We face an economic recession and a huge budget deficit; what should we do?

Republicans correctly point out that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. Demand is already too low, and there is fear of deflation. Extending the tax cuts would put more money in the hands of Americans and allow us to spend. In the short term, the tax cuts should be extended. The economy is hungry and it need some money to munch on; give it to us, and we'll spend it.

However the deficit is a long-term problem, and the reality is that fixing it is going to require more revenue. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a bad idea as it will substantially hamper our ability to trim the deficit (this is how you know that Republican posturing is just that). As Mr. Orszag suggests in his article then, perhaps the best thing to do in the short run is extend all the tax cuts 2-3 years and get the economy back on track, then let the cuts expire and use the revenue to cut into the deficit.

I think this is a good plan. Fixing the economy is the paramount concern. A healthy economy will do more to diminish the deficit than proposed austerity, and extra revenue will help American families do their part to get the economy back on track - spend.

This is a compromise that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on; it incorporates the ideas of both parties, and more importantly, strengthens America. This plan would help bolster the economy in the short term, while still addressing the deficit in the long-run. If Democrats and Republicans truly care; they'll come up with a similar idea.

Celebrity Death Match

Remember that old show on MTV? Claymation celebrities duked it out in a wrestling ring, with the winner eventually doing something grotesque to the loser - like eating his face. Maybe that was acceptable because everything was made of clay and you could disguise the bloodbath with crappy animation.

Well in doing my daily readings, I stumbled upon the idea for a new celebrity death match. But instead of claymation combat, this one will pit the ideas of one person against another. In short, it's a debate, but titling a blog post "Debate" would be as boring as it sounds.

So this week's celebrity death match pits Paul Krugman of Nobel Prize fame against Liz Peek of lizpeek.com fame. Now at first, this may seem to be an unfair match-up, a la Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Prince, after all, Liz Peek has HER OWN WEBSITE!!!!

But let's review what each of them has to say before we jump to conclusions. Peek, in her article "The Liberals Are Losing It," makes a variety of strong points. Among them: Obama has passed policies that benefit the American people. Ok that's it, Peek doesn't make any other strong points, and she makes that one in sarcasm, so it doesn't count. But Peek does do what the right does best. She ignores facts and twists truths. Peek is sticking with the Republican line of "the stimulus failed," which is true only because no one listened to Paul Krugman et al and passed a stimulus that was big enough to help.

The truth about the economy now is the same truth that Krugman and many other smart economists were preaching when the recession started, that when the private sector is incapable of stimulating growth, someone needs to fill the void. That someone would be the government. Obviously we don't want or hope for the government to become overly involved or overly invested in the economy, but then again, we don't hope for recessions either. When failed policies lead us into an economic downturn, we need alternate policies to help pull us out. The stimulus was that alternate policy, and that stimulus represents textbooks economics. Hell, even Liz Peek probably knows that, SHE HAS HER OWN WEBSITE!!!

Picking on Liz Peek is too easy, it's like picking on John Boehner or Glenn Beck. I should know better, but these people represent a serious threat to our country. I pick on them because they influence thousands of Americans who seem willing to turn their pack on sense, and embrace another round of failure. I rant about Republicans, not because I think they're all bad - quite the contrary - but because too many of them (and the loudest ones) don't serve the American people. Perhaps they claim to, but their words and the policies they enact prove otherwise.

And so Liz Peek, whoever the hell Liz Peek is, writes an article with witty little comparisons - Obama's policies slowing down the economy like Mt. Rushmore would slow down a car pulling it - without ever looking at the facts. She either doesn't know or doesn't care that the economy hasn't been slowed by the financial regulation law - that sector of the economy is booming. Wall Street bankers are setting records with the bonuses they've gotten. She either doesn't know or doesn't care that fixing the economy will help stabilize the deficit. And it doesn't matter whether she is ignorant or evil, because either way, she's out there hurting America.

I've made the plea before, and between now and November, I'll make it many more times, but America needs sensible people who are willing to cooperate and who are willing to do what's best for our country, not for their political party. We don't need 100 Democratic Senators. In fact, I'd settle for 55, as long as we can get some sensible Republicans to join them. I know those sensible Republicans are out there - CAN YOU HEAR ME OLYMPIA SNOWE? CAN YOU HEAR ME LINDSEY GRAHAM? CAN YOU HEAR ME JOHN McCAIN OF YESTERYEAR?

They're out there. Good people with whom I disagree, but who have good ideas and have America's best interest in heart and mind. If only they would recover the fortitude that drew us to them in the first place.